Thanks for that youtube link. It's amazing how well they have managed to recreate everything and it's all *real* set. I would've thought most would be CGI -esp. Rivendell but all that was really done! (Probably redone - since it's probably not very easy to reassemble from the earlier film).

Amazing.

I think they should have let Edoras and Meduseld stand on that hill (that we see in that amazing shot in LOTR: TTT). These sets look sturdy.

^ I have been to Mt Sunday and trust me, besides being VERY windy up there, it is private property. Not sure the owner would've wanted a fortress sitting atop his own private mountain for thousands of people to trample up daily. As it was, as per his request, they had to build a special construct over a pile of stones that signified the burial place of the owner's beloved dog. The site obviously means a lot to him and I think he wanted it relatively private.

Yeah, as much as it would be cool to have monuments to the LOTR films ... I think leaving behind a number of permanent sets would not only interfere with the natural beauty of New Zealand, but would also be somewhat contrary to Tolkien's overall message in the books.

The LOTR movies were kind of a defining moment in my youth, and it just made me so incredibly happy to watch PJ walking around, visiting the various sets, checking out the costumes, and interacting with so many familiar (and new) faces. I really feel like they're going to knock these movies out of the park.

I enjoyed the ceremony, as well. It shows once again the close relationship PJ's crew seems to have with the locals, the respect for the people and land, all of which worked so well in creating LOTR to begin with. Especially nice to see Martin Freeman highlighted in his comments.

When Peter Jackson said that he was bringing every possible actor he could find from the Lord Of The Rings trilogy into The Hobbit out of some deep-seated fear that without their comforting presence, audiences would somehow dismiss it, thereby sending him into a shame spiral of binge eating that would cause him to regain all the weight he’s lost—actually, wait, Peter Jackson didn’t say this. These were our own cynical conclusions, based entirely on the fact that The Hobbit is increasingly turning into some sort of Middle Earth high school reunion. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course; some bleed-over is to be expected, even if some of Jackson’s efforts to ensure the films link up lately feel strangely compulsive.

Anyway, the newest LOTR actor confirmed to return is Ian Holm, who will reprise his role as the elder Bilbo Baggins, despite the fact that The Hobbit already has a Bilbo Baggins— namely Martin Freeman, who seems increasingly lucky to be getting any screen time at all.

I am sad to report that Rob Kazinsky, who was cast in the role of Fili, is having to leave The Hobbit and return home, for personal reasons. Rob has been terrific to work with and his enthusiasm and infectious sense of humour will be missed by all of us. I should say that Rob's departure will not affect ongoing filming of The Hobbit, nor will it impact work done to date, as we had yet to film much of Fili's storyline. At the moment we are shooting scenes featuring Bilbo without the Dwarves, which will give us time to find a new Fili. I'll keep everyone posted with updates as they come.
Cheers,
Peter J

The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, it's impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised.

We will be completing a "normal" 24 frames per second version—in both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.

Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) "Saving Private Ryan" look.

However, we're going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.

The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, it's impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised.

We will be completing a "normal" 24 frames per second version—in both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.

Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) "Saving Private Ryan" look.

However, we're going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.